Apple Says 'We Won't Make an Exception' for Epic Games in App Store Dispute

[macsimcon]

Apple needs to cut down their fees to about 5-15%.
30% is beyond all reason. It's especially bad for small devs and companies.

The App Store is mature now, and additional costs are only incremental so that the store can scale. Remember when Steve said they weren't going to make money on the store, they were running it for cost? I don't think that's true today.

I would love for Apple to adopt a graduated fee structure like Microsoft, but I don't think it's right for government to force them to do it.

By the way, this is what happens when you let a bean-counter like Timmy run the company. He's cheap. He doesn't include cables in the box. Now he doesn't want to include headphones in the box on the next iPhone. Apple is so out of ideas that they created their own credit card, which talentless hacks like banks can do.

Tim's miserly management of Apple has damaged the customer's experience even if it has richly rewarded Apple shareholders.

 

[Rogifan]

All that is irrelevant.

If the argument is 30% is fair because that’s what everyone else is doing but everyone else was just following your lead it’s not. You’d think Apple would want to take the lead here rather than be forced into a worse solution by government regulators.

 

[GizmoDVD]

Epic only takes a 12% cut from developers on their store plus they give away free games each week. I wish Apple would do that.

90% of the AppStore is FREE. 12% "cut" for far, far less features, services etc.

 

[Rogifan]

Retail takes 30% from game sales. Unless it changed recently, thats been the standard for a very long time.

Also its common sense a physical store isnt giving things away for free so im not exactly sure what point you are trying to make there

I’m saying it makes no sense to compare physical stores to digital stores.

 

[ScottHammet]

If Epic doesn't like the terms of the App Store, they are still free to distribute their game outside of the store. It will still work on Apple devices if installed directly from Epic. Epic can manage its own infrastructure to facilitate all of the in-game payments processing, and Epic can keep 100% of the fees. But that's not what this is about.

Epic still wants access to the App Store. Epic doesn't want to go it alone. They want to be able to use the App Store to distribute their game, distribute updates, and process purchase transactions, etc.. They want access to the Apple (and Google too, as it's the same argument on that platform too) customer base. They want access to the entire ecosystem that Apple has created via their products, development tools, distribution mechanisms, and consumer trust in the Apple brand. Naturally, having created the platform, ecosystem, and grown the customer base over years, Apple seeks to be compensated for providing all of these market conveniences that Epic and other developers get to enjoy. Except Epic doesn't want to pay the asking price.

Any developer or business that wants to go it alone and forego inclusion in the App Store is free to do so. But whining about the cost of access to an entire platform and business model that Epic didn't create, from which Epic still makes a hefty profit--apparently just not large enough--is disingenuous at best. Apple could charge a 50% cut and that would still mean Epic makes 50% more than it would without the App Store.

 

[macsimcon]

And why would they? No one is stopping them form doing these unethical, anti-consumer, monopolistic practices. So, why not? Go Apple. Get even more drunk with power.

You can't engage in monopolistic practices without a monopoly buddy.

 

[GizmoDVD]

Were they all charging that before the App Store existed in 2008? Or are some of them charging that because that’s what Apple decided to charge? Anyway since when is Apple known for doing what everyone else is doing?

XBL was around in 2002ish and was charging the 30%. Sony, IIRC, shortly after with the same fee. Nintendo around 2004 with the Wii

 

[78Bandit]

Apple is already making "exceptions". They don't make companies like Uber, Airbnb, Walmart, etc. use their in-app payment system. Then you've got the newest category, "apps that just read content" to cover things like Netflix.

Bottom line is Apple's classification of companies into categories that require in-app purchases to go through Apple's system exclusively is completely arbitrary and exceptions are only needed because of their own anticompetitive appstore rules.

 

[Ishayu]

By the way, this is what happens when you let a bean-counter like Timmy run the company. He's cheap. He doesn't include cables in the box. Now he doesn't want to include headphones in the box on the next iPhone. Apple is so out of ideas that they created their own credit card, which talentless hacks like banks can do.

I'm actually with Tim Apple on that one. Phones, in general, came with chargers and headphones in a world where there were no standards and people weren't expected to have the equipment capable of using the device without those items included in the box. It provided a better user experience.

As for now, I'd like to shave off a few bucks by not having to purchase additional chargers and headphones that I will not use. It's a completely pointless waste of money to hand me useless chargers, and furthermore it damages the environment.

Make an offer: iPhone + charger + headphones = old iPhone price
iPhone without charger + headphones = old iPhone price minus 3/4ths of the current charger and headphones price.

Simple, right?

However, I will agree that Tim Cook seems a lot less passionate about Apple's products and he's definitely not making the products that I want as a nerdy gamer and hardware enthusiast, which is different from how Apple was under Steve Jobs. He makes walled gardens and artificially cut down, lousy devices.

I buy Apple devices exclusively for the operating system. If I could get that operating system on a more open platform and without the walled garden, I'd be extremely happy.

 

[Abazigal]

Epic only takes a 12% cut from developers on their store plus they give away free games each week. I wish Apple would do that.

It's easy to take a lesser cut from a developer when you are also doing way less to justify a higher cut.

 

[BootLoxes]

I’m saying it makes no sense to compare physical stores to digital stores.

The original post was asking if the consoles adopted the 30% because of apple setting their store at 30%. I was just saying that this standard has been around longer with retail stores.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

When you say retail do you mean physical stores? Because I don’t think that’s applicable at all. I go To Walmart or Target and everything on the shelf costs something. Go into Apple’s App Store and many things are free.

The majority of those "free" apps have sponsored ads in them. That's who pays for the apps. They aren't free.

 

[pbush25]

There absolutely is. Look how many companies have been hacked. Apple, even if it's not their payment system, would be on the hook for it if it happened through their payment portal.

Came here to say the exact same thing. Look at target for example. All it takes is for one of these companies to be breached and suddenly millions of credit cards and other personal information has been stolen.

If Apple allowed devs to use their own payment system, they’d have to face irate customers asking why they weren’t protecting them, even though at that point it’s not their responsibility. If Apple don’t allow devs to use their own and instead run it through themselves they mitigate this risk. When has Apple been breached?

Maybe OP’s point would have more of a leg to stand on if Apple had a track record of insecurity, but personally I’m extremely happy to trust them with my information, over Epic, who is minority owned by a Chinese company nonetheless.

And Epic aside, I’d rather not trust every indie dev with my payment information if i can avoid it. I’ve been an indie dev, and let me tell you their first consideration is definitely not going to be top of the line information security.

 

[PutTheFBackIn]

Anyone else LOL about Apple giving Epic two weeks aka a FORTNIGHT to make their decision?

I’m sorry, but that’s gold! 🤣🤣

 

[sence]

How can anyone side with Epic in this case? Let’s explore the options.

A) Apple lowers the fee.

How low should it be then and who gets to decide it? According to Epic this should not be up to Apple. The market currently decides with Apple what is suitable and if one of them were incorrect the AppStore would be empty.

B) Apple should let people use their own payment system.

So Apple should make zero of the AppStore? Because that is what would happen, plus who should the customer contact if something goes wrong?

C) People should be able to start their own app stores and sideload apps.

So you basically want to turn Apple into Android? Why do you even buy an iPhone? I have a clue because It’s mostly malware-free, apps do what they say, privacy is strong, no dodgy app that sucks your data out. Do you know what control and resources you need to keep that? Exactly the control and monitoring that Apple currently has.

What Epic is doing is equal to opening a McDonalds. Signing a franchising deal with them only to later use their own cash register, refusing to pay any fees for using the McDonalds brands and services, and as icing on the cake posting a video of Ronald McDonald lobotomizing children.

But fine I will grant Epic to build their own AppStore, but then they can’t use any of Apple tools to make the games or the store. So bye-bye Xcode, Frameworks, APIs, Payment system, Customer support, App monitoring, good luck Epic!

 

[dguisinger]

Came here to say the exact same thing. Look at target for example. All it takes is for one of these companies to be breached and suddenly millions of credit cards and other personal information has been stolen.

If Apple allowed devs to use their own payment system, they’d have to face irate customers asking why they weren’t protecting them, even though at that point it’s not their responsibility. If Apple don’t allow devs to use their own and instead run it through themselves they mitigate this risk. When has Apple been breached?

Maybe OP’s point would have more of a leg to stand on if Apple had a track record of insecurity, but personally I’m extremely happy to trust them with my information, over Epic, who is minority owned by a Chinese company nonetheless.

And Epic aside, I’d rather not trust every indie dev with my payment information if i can avoid it. I’ve been an indie dev, and let me tell you their first consideration is definitely not going to be top of the line information security.

Never thought I'd say it.... I'm now eagerly awaiting the day Apple has a payment system breach so this stupid talking point gets shut down

 

[EvilEvil]

90% of the AppStore is FREE. 12% "cut" for far, far less features, services etc.

"Free" with a lot of in-app-purchases with Apple taking a 30% cut 😂.

 

[macsimcon]

I have no idea what the complaining is about. 30%+ markup is standard in most industries. Nearly everyone knows that wine is marked up about 100% in restaurants. Is this anti-winemaker? The difference here is that the developer sets the retail price and Apple takes a cut. If the developer thinks his work is worth $5/app then sell it in the iOS store for $7.14. Apple also provides all of the infrastructure, payment processing, and the SDK. If a developer wants to avoid the 30%, they can easily do so by using their own payment system outside of the app. Amazon does this for Kindle. Netflix does this for their subscribers. Epic and Spotify could do that as well. But they want the ease of using the iOS platform for purchases without paying for it. And instead whine about the rules that they agreed to.

A developer can't just decide to charge whatever they want, they have to charge what people are willing to pay. If people are only willing to pay $5 for certain category of app, then the developer can't just charge $7.14.

 

[mattopotamus]

If Epic doesn't like the terms of the App Store, they are still free to distribute their game outside of the store. It will still work on Apple devices if installed directly from Epic. Epic can manage its own infrastructure to facilitate all of the in-game payments processing, and Epic can keep 100% of the fees. But that's not what this is about.

Epic still wants access to the App Store. Epic doesn't want to go it alone. They want to be able to use the App Store to distribute their game, distribute updates, and process purchase transactions, etc.. They want access to the Apple (and Google too, as it's the same argument on that platform too) customer base. They want access to the entire ecosystem that Apple has created via their products, development tools, distribution mechanisms, and consumer trust in the Apple brand. Naturally, having created the platform, ecosystem, and grown the customer base over years, Apple seeks to be compensated for providing all of these market conveniences that Epic and other developers get to enjoy. Except Epic doesn't want to pay the asking price.

Any developer or business that wants to go it alone and forego inclusion in the App Store is free to do so. But whining about the cost of access to an entire platform and business model that Epic didn't create, from which Epic still makes a hefty profit--apparently just not large enough--is disingenuous at best. Apple could charge a 50% cut and that would still mean Epic makes 50% more than it would without the App Store.

Apple is threatening to block them from doing this for violating their terms.

 

[Ethosik]

I get the logic, and that Apple can’t review every single app’s payment system so it is indeed safer from their pov for everyone to use apple’s... but.... I don’t believe it for a second.

There’s no ‘safety’ reason why bigger companies wouldn’t be sufficiently secure. They could even hire the same vetting teams that Apple does to prove this.

So of course it’s about protecting an income stream and nothing to do with consumer safety.

Then you are really asking for special treatment. Sure Epic, Microsoft, Google are big companies and can be trusted. But what about Joe Somebody creating their own App Store? Should they get equal treatment and be allowed to create one? What if they create a malicious App Store at this point with a bad payment processor?

 

[4jasontv]

5 GB base storage that does not even fit a back up in most cases

iCloud is not a backup.

Has Epic stated what they feel is fair besides independent app stores?

This reminds me of what my mom used to say when we complained we wanted pizza. “I don’t care what you were in the mood for. I made this and you are going to eat it. When you have your own house, buy your own groceries, and prepare your own meals You can decide what you will eat. Until then appreciate what you have or go without anything.”

 

[pbush25]

Never thought I'd say it.... I'm now eagerly awaiting the day Apple has a payment system breach so this stupid talking point gets shut down

so instead of contributing to the conversation you just hope that Apple gets hacked and everyone’s personal information becomes available because you can’t argue against it?

 

[sence]

You either haven't been "following along" very well or your bias towards Apple and against Epic is showing.



Again, you're not reading well. The only people making the claim that Epic wants a "free lunch" are those that support Apple. There should be CHOICE as to how a developer distributes their app or how the customer pays for in-app purchases, and there isn't.



So you can read and remember some things, as this argument very popular by pro-Apple people but is really getting tired. There are laws that say you can't do whatever you want when it comes to commerce. There are laws against monopolies and against over-charging, etc.

What if Apple said the new fee is now 50%? Then next year said 70%? It is still "their environment, their rules"?

So by your logic tesla should fit all their cars with extra hinges so you can put on doors from the car to their liking? Come on. It would also be interesting to see the law that says you can’t charge what you like for your services....

 

[78Bandit]

This is the absolute truth. It's all about cash.

Epic lowered the price in their own payment system with 20% and Apple's share is 30% so that means Epic would gain 10% more profit using its own payment system and they're selling it like it's for the consumers and other developers. In the end the only thing that matters is the board meeting where they can tell they made more money that the same quarter of the previous year.

Not necessarily. We don't know what it costs Epic to run its own payment processing system. You can figure at least 2%-3% will go to bank processing fees. It's probably less than 10%, but you can't just make the assertion it costs nothing and Epic is putting the entire 10% into their coffers.

Came here to say the exact same thing. Look at target for example. All it takes is for one of these companies to be breached and suddenly millions of credit cards and other personal information has been stolen.

If Apple allowed devs to use their own payment system, they’d have to face irate customers asking why they weren’t protecting them, even though at that point it’s not their responsibility. If Apple don’t allow devs to use their own and instead run it through themselves they mitigate this risk. When has Apple been breached?

Maybe OP’s point would have more of a leg to stand on if Apple had a track record of insecurity, but personally I’m extremely happy to trust them with my information, over Epic, who is minority owned by a Chinese company nonetheless.

And Epic aside, I’d rather not trust every indie dev with my payment information if i can avoid it. I’ve been an indie dev, and let me tell you their first consideration is definitely not going to be top of the line information security.

This argument would make sense if Apple wasn't already allowing companies like Uber, Airbnb, Amazon, Walmart, etc. to use their own payment system in the apps. Why is digital distribution supposedly so much more risky than services and physical goods? Under your scenario wouldn't Apple be just as liable if any other company that uses in-app payments that don't go through Apple's system got hacked?

I can see offering a choice like Epic did, you like Apple and trust their security more then go ahead and use them for a 20% premium; otherwise you can use our system and save some money.

 

[Ethosik]

I'm actually completely with Epic on this matter. At least with Android people can install apps from outside the Play Store to avoid these charges. Apple doesn’t need to take any cut in my opinion. It’s pure greed. They don't need that money. They should be supporting their developer community by allowing them to keep 100% of their money. As a consumer and developer I’m a big believer in supporting developers. If I am buying or subscribing to an app for my Mac I will always first check if it’s available direct from the developer website rather than the app store as I want to support them financially for their hard work. I don’t see why Apple should get any of that money.

Let's see. CDN costs, hosting your application (yes they are separate things). App Discoverability, being a middle man for support between devs and consumers. Handling disputes to charges or handling refunds so I do not have to. Having my app reviewed so consumers can get it with confidence.

Its not just "Host app - done 30% please".